Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species. Just because humans cannot communicate with other non-human animals does not mean that the idea of consent is invalid or absurd.
The fact remains: we cannot receive consent from animals should we want to violate their bodily autonomy. It is always morally unjust to do this. The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets. Humans do this for their own benefit, to avoid behaviors in animals that occur if nothing is done, since not doing so would be inconvenient.
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.
All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.
Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.
You’re trying to prove a negative. Where’s your evidence for that?
Does the door bleed when you do that? Does it cry out in fear of rape, or of sadness of losing its child right after birth?
the issue was consent. are you conceding that consent is absurd from something that we cannot communicate with?
Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species. Just because humans cannot communicate with other non-human animals does not mean that the idea of consent is invalid or absurd.
The fact remains: we cannot receive consent from animals should we want to violate their bodily autonomy. It is always morally unjust to do this. The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets. Humans do this for their own benefit, to avoid behaviors in animals that occur if nothing is done, since not doing so would be inconvenient.
consent must be informed. animals can’t be informed anymore than a door can.
From humans they can’t. From other animals of their species, yes they can.
i don’t think this is proven. can you cite something?
edit this sub thread has turned into the user spamming a gish galloping comment that does not, in fact, support their claim.
Sure thing, bud
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.
Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird
at least you are consistent on this point
this is a leap of logic.
You are a dumbass that knows nothing about biology.
please cite an animal behavior paper that supports your claim
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.
Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird
none of these are animal cognative behavioral studies showing non human animals can understand and consent to reproduction
All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.
Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.
You’re trying to prove a negative. Where’s your evidence for that?
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.